Yes.Also, the above sounds like "The Self" does the kamma.
It is the self view does the Kamma.
Yes.Also, the above sounds like "The Self" does the kamma.
"Monks, I will teach you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.I doubt the statement above is "understanding". It sounds like just unverified belief or interpretation.
I believe you are right; it is not the Sutta Pitaka. It is however, in the Commentaries. I'm not a big fan of the Commentaries, I prefers Suttas like many of us here who tend to focus on EBT, but the Suttas don't discuss in much detail the workings of actions and results, so in this case (and some others) I think it can be good to look at the Commentary version and in this case it makes good sense, imo.
In Buddhist commentary (from the 5th to 13th centuries CE) we find the pañcavidha niyama, fivefold niyama which occurs in the following texts:
In the Aṭṭhasālinī (272-274), the commentary attributed to Buddhaghosa on the Dhammasangaṅi, the first book of the Theravāda Abhidhamma Piṭaka;[30]
In the Sumaṅgala-Vilāsinī (DA 2.431), Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the Dīgha Nikāya;[31]
In the Abhidhammāvatāra (PTS p.54), a verse summary of Abhidhamma by Buddhaghosa’s contemporary, Buddhadatta.[32]
Abhidhammamātika Internal Commentary. (p. 58) The Abhidhamma-mātika is a matrix of abstracts for the Abhidhamma, with lists of pairs and triplets of terms from which the whole of the text can theoretically be reconstructed. The passage on the niyamas is from an internal commentary on the mātika associated with the Dhammasaṅgaṇī (the niyāmas don’t appear to be mentioned in the mātrix itself, but only in this appendix.); and was composed in South India by Coḷaraṭṭha Kassapa (12th–13th century).
Abhidhammāvatāra-purāṇatīkā (p.1.68). Composed by in Sri Lanka by Vācissara Mahāsāmi c. 13th century or Sāriputta c. 12th century. This text is a commentary on the text of the Abhidhammāvatāra Nāmarūpa-parichedo (ṭīka) so is technically a sub-sub-commentary. This commentary is an incomplete word by word commentary.
utu-niyāma “the constraint of the seasons”, i.e. in certain regions of the earth at certain periods the flowering and fruiting of trees all at one time (ekappahāreneva), the blowing or ceasing of wind, the degree of the heat of the sun, the amount of rain-fall, some flowers like the lotuses opening during the day and closing at night and so on;
bīja-niyāma “the constraint of seeds or germs”, i.e. a seed producing its own kind as barley seed produces barley;
kammaniyāma “the constraint of kamma”, i.e. good actions produce good results and bad actions produce bad results. This constraint is said to be epitomised by [Dhammapada] verse 127 which explains that the consequences of actions are inescapable;
citta-niyāma “the constraint of mind”, i.e. the order of the process of mind-activities as the preceding thought-moment causing and conditioning the succeeding one in a cause and effect relation;
dhamma-niyāma “the constraint of dhammas”, i.e. such events like the quaking of the ten thousand world-systems at the Bodhisatta’s conception in his mother’s womb and at his birth. At the end of the discussion Sumaṅgalavilāsinī passage the Commentary says that dhammaniyāma explains the term dhammatā in the text of the Mahāpadāna Sutta (D ii.12) (Cf. S 12.20 for a discussion of the use of the word dhammaniyamatā in the suttas)
In these texts the fivefold niyama was introduced into commentarial discussions not to illustrate that the universe was intrinsically ethical but as a list that demonstrated the universal scope of paṭicca-samuppāda. The original purpose of expounding fivefold niyama was, according to Ledi Sayadaw, neither to promote or to demote the law of karma, but to show the scope of natural law as an alternative to the claims of theism.[33]
C.A.F. Rhys Davids was the first western scholar to draw attention to the list of pañcavidha niyama, in her little book of 1912 entitled simply Buddhism. Her reason for mentioning it was to emphasise how for Buddhism we exist in a "moral universe" in which actions lead to just consequences according to a natural moral order, a situation she calls a "cosmodicy" in contrast with the Christian theodicy.:[34][35]
In Mrs Rhys Davids scheme the niyamas become:
kamma niyama: ("action") consequences of one's actions
utu niyama: ("time, season") seasonal changes and climate, law of non-living matter
bīja niyama: ("seed") laws of heredity
citta niyama:("mind") will of mind
dhamma niyama: ("law") nature's tendency to perfect
This is similar to the scheme proposed by Ledi Sayadaw.[36] Western Buddhist Sangharakshita has taken up Mrs Rhys Davids conception of the niyamas and made it an important aspect of his own teachings on Buddhism. [37]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niyama#Buddhism
If his point is that the Buddha taught one thing on kamma, and Buddhist Traditions taught another... is he at fault for pointing this out, and for attempting to provide an explanation that is as close as he can to the Dhamma, as taught by the Buddha?TRobinson465 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:02 am In this case i think Bhante Sujato didnt learn this idea from a tradition or Thai teacher, as this POV seems to contradict virtually all Buddhist traditions view of kamma. I think he might just be presenting his own opinion influenced by his secularized, Buddhism in this lifetime, anti-"asian superstition" western background or something.
Is there sutta or even commentarial substantiation for this, or is this just some variety of "pop karma" being smuggled into Buddhism?pilgrim wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:41 am Being hit by a falling TV is due to someone else's carelessness but whether you die, suffer serious or minor injuries is due to your past kamma. There is no Group kamma. Hundreds of people can be at the wrong place when it is hit by a tsunami . But kamma determines who survives and who doesn't.
https://what-buddha-said.net/Canon/Sutt ... .story.htmdiamind wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:24 pm Im just listening to a few talks by Bhante Sujato. It doesn't take long until you encounter his view of karma.
Where is he getting these ideas from? It seems like he really believes his view point but then I think maybe his belief is some what fabricated to try and push his "early buddhism ideology" further. Can anyone shed some light onto this?
So basically his example is, if a TV drops out of a hotel window and you are walking along on the street below minding your own business and the tv lands on your head, this has nothing to do with karma. He also says collective karma's are a myth and birth defects are not created by karma.
If you take his very strict definition of karma and say karma is only a deliberate thought pattern of the present mind, then YES I agree, the example has nothing to do with karma, but then why is the TV hitting you on the head? Sujato doesn't really answer this question.
retrofuturist wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:12 am Greetings TRobinson,
If his point is that the Buddha taught one thing on kamma, and Buddhist Traditions taught another... is he at fault for pointing this out, and for attempting to provide an explanation that is as close as he can to the Dhamma, as taught by the Buddha?TRobinson465 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:02 am In this case i think Bhante Sujato didnt learn this idea from a tradition or Thai teacher, as this POV seems to contradict virtually all Buddhist traditions view of kamma. I think he might just be presenting his own opinion influenced by his secularized, Buddhism in this lifetime, anti-"asian superstition" western background or something.
What would the Buddha prefer him to do? Toe the party line, or adhere more closely to Buddhadhamma?
Metta,
Paul.
What if he got it from the Sutta Pitaka, didn't extrapolate beyond what he read, and didn't unquestioningly take on board subsequent additions and revisions?If you think bhante sujato is teaching the "true" kamma without direct knowledge then at best you can say he got this using scriptural interpretation, which was undoubtedly influenced by his anti-"asian superstition" western background or something, since he clearly didnt get it from any existing traditions.
I believe in conformity to the Suttas. If that's regarded as "alternative" or "mainstream" on any particular subject, then so be it.Also, this can apply to other "true" interpretations of certain Buddhist teachings also, like the ever controversial anatta. yet anytime someone points out alternative interpretations ppl on this forum, including you Paul, jump in and say anything alternative to the mainstream is wrong. Why apply this open minded idea of "true dhamma not maintained by tradition" only to this scenario here?
Are you commenting from a position of being familar with Sujato and his style of teacher?TRobinson465 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:02 am In this case i think Bhante Sujato didnt learn this idea from a tradition or Thai teacher, as this POV seems to contradict virtually all Buddhist traditions view of kamma. I think he might just be presenting his own opinion influenced by his secularized, Buddhism in this lifetime, anti-"asian superstition" western background or something.
The self-view appears to arise at attachment (9th link) therefore how can it create aggregates at the 9th link?
Just personal interpretation. The above sutta appears to literally say: "The eye ought to be viewed as old kamma". It is not saying the aggregates are old kamma. If this sutta was about the aggregates, in would be in Chapter 22 of the SN rather than Chapter 35 (Salayatana-samyutta). Nor is it saying the eye is old kamma. It just says the eye should be viewed as old kamma. In other words, it appears to say one should not travel back to the past like you are doing with ideas of old kamma but only view the oldest kamma as occurring in the present moment, at the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind. The above sutta appears to say the opposite of what you are interpreting. AN 6.63 and SN 12.25 say contact is the condition for kamma to come into play.SarathW wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 2:05 am"Monks, I will teach you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.I doubt the statement above is "understanding". It sounds like just unverified belief or interpretation.
"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.
AN 6.63